me and a few guys are starting a little rip circle, and being the big techie, i've been placed in charge of finding our standard lame switches. we're using Lame3.90.2-ICL EXE. i think that's the best lame version out there. we were using --alt -preset cbr 192, but it's joint stereo. we need full stereo. i'd love suggestions, especially if anyone knows which switches some ripping groups use, because their files always sound boss. this is my latest switch test, any thoughts?

spicymeatball: I just checked your full list of posts, seeing you had only 7...

And it turns out that a year ago you were doing the same kind of questions...

The answer has not changed:

Joint-stereo in LAME is definitely better than Stereo. It is perfect. No problems at all. Period. Whoever tells you that Joint-Stereo is a problem in LAME has no idea what he is talking about, has not tested, and should not be considered reliable. Are you going to believe him or the guys that develop LAME? Who do you think knows better?

The idea that Joint-Stereo is bad started because years ago, there was a commercial encoder that had a major bug in the way it did Joint-Stereo. But that's not LAME, and it has nothing to do with it.

If you want the best quality at bitrates around 192, use just --alt-preset standard nothing else, nothing more. Yes, it is Joint-Stereo, yes, it is VBR, and yes, it is currently the BEST for that bitrate range in MP3. Those long command lines will only screw things up.

If you need to use CBR (why???), then the best is --alt-preset cbr 192. As above, nothing else, nothing more.

well, thank you all for your help. i kind of left myself open and got what i expected. i agree with you all that --alt -preset standard is the best quality. but that's not what i'm trying for. i'm just trying for the best quality at 192 cbr. it seems like stereo is out, and joint it is in. thank you all for that; --alt -preset cbr 192 it is.....

well, thank you all for your help. i kind of left myself open and got what i expected. i agree with you all that --alt -preset standard is the best quality. but that's not what i'm trying for. i'm just trying for the best quality at 192 cbr. it seems like stereo is out, and joint it is in. thank you all for that; --alt -preset cbr 192 it is.....

What are you "trying for"? You should be after top quality, not what the release groups use (after all, if you are simply copying their actions, why even bother?)

I've recently started using --alt-preset 192. I am really starting to like the ABR mode. The predicibilty of the file size is nice.

I have found this setting to be a good compromise (for my ears) that allows me to use the output on portables & real stereo systems.

I have a portable with a few 64MB flash cards and 128MB flash cards. At this setting, most of my olders CD's will fit on the 64MB card, and for the new ones they all will fit on the 128MB card. One CD per card works for me.

The sound quality is good enough for my car MP3 player as well. Yep, I'm a new ABR convert.

It is my understanding that MP3 distros tend to block files that are not encoded according to the "MP3 Council" standard: 192 or 256 CBR strict stereo. Yeah, I have tried telling them, but it's like talking to a wall.

What MP3 "Councils" or ripping groups deem as acceptable are hardly standards. They are instead simply arbitrary decisions a group of ignorant people made without really understanding the basic concepts of the technology they were using.

Sorry if it may seem a little offensive to you, but I don't really understand the point in bothering with trying to find the highest quality settings when from the get go you are limited in what you can use by what these ignorant people are telling you is acceptable and what isn't, and that their decisions are not based in actual quality measurements.

It'd be much more worthwhile to encode for yourself than to worry about catering to the politics of the "scene".

What MP3 "Councils" or ripping groups deem as acceptable are hardly standards. They are instead simply arbitrary decisions a group of ignorant people made without really understanding the basic concepts of the technology they were using.

Sorry if it may seem a little offensive to you, but I don't really understand the point in bothering with trying to find the highest quality settings when from the get go you are limited in what you can use by what these ignorant people are telling you is acceptable and what isn't, and that their decisions are not based in actual quality measurements.

It'd be much more worthwhile to encode for yourself than to worry about catering to the politics of the "scene".

As since the "scene" are basically a bunch of pirates, why should they be able to mandate anything? It's like being told you can only steal in certain ways. "Lift all the Tylenol you want, but don't touch the Pepto!!"

the standards cater to the lowest common denominator, yes. divx ripping groups are similar, un-willing to adopt the newest methods in favor of more widespread, heavily practiced methods. groups also have bandwidth to consider. anyways, i'd been using presets in my personal rips. --alt-preset standard, in my experience does not produce similar file sizes as 192 cbr; for the record. they almost always have bitrates up towards the 220 max. anyways, thank you all again. i think i've got the information i need

the standards cater to the lowest common denominator, yes. divx ripping groups are similar, un-willing to adopt the newest methods in favor of more widespread, heavily practiced methods. groups also have bandwidth to consider. anyways, i'd been using presets in my personal rips. --alt-preset standard, in my experience does not produce similar file sizes as 192 cbr; for the record. they almost always have bitrates up towards the 220 max. anyways, thank you all again. i think i've got the information i need

i'll watch this flame burn out from a safe distance..........

DivX Ripping Groups started using ABR audio ca. 1 year ago. Audio Ripping Groups still insist on their ignorant 192cbr standard since almost forever...

I'm very well aware that the audio ripping scene does allow JS to be used, so I really don't understand why you eventually chose the typical (but far from perfect) "-b 192 -h -m s" encoding settings. Since it's you that you are the "big techie" of your group and you really do find "--alt preset cbr 192" superior in every way, I just don't understand how your "colleagues" don't realize some simple facts, and don't even take under consideration your technicall knowledge and opinion. IMHO you shouldn't have really taken the trouble to make any kind of research...those guys seem too stubborn and narrow minded. Better find yourself a decent group to participate in...

anyways, i'd been using presets in my personal rips. --alt-preset standard, in my experience does not produce similar file sizes as 192 cbr; for the record. they almost always have bitrates up towards the 220 max.

I've explained many times that it depends on the music you encode. If you're only encoding heavily compress pop music, or loud industrial/ebm or rock/metal, then yes, bitrate will be higher than 200kbps on average. If you're encoding jazz/classical/some quieter IDM or experimental/avantgarde type music, then the bitrate will be lower.

People usually just encode one type of music and then expect the bitrates are going to be the same for everything. With other codecs which are more efficient and do not have problems with loud high frequency content like MP3 does, this might be correct, but with MP3, this is not the case.

In the ripping "scene", I guess there's not much demand for the music in the latter type of genres that I listed.